Will editors marking versions incur any additional liability? I'm especially thinking of controversial material about living people. If this has already been hashed out, just point me to the discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Person X" signs in with a nom-de-plume and uses public access terminals (libraries, internet cafes etc) and makes a statement that is slightly controversial. #How# can the originator be legally dealt with?
The article/proposa is confusing - will only some articles be covered, vandalised earlier versions be blocked etc? How will a good article about a living person be dealt with? Pages which need much improvement. "Very technical" pages which need an expert to assess them?
There is an argument for the Wiki equivalent of kitemarking of articles which reach a certain minimum standard - but a framework has to be developed first that does not imply a two-tier Wikipedia - and probably a serious reduction in the cleanup, expansion and other work required lists.
(Can someone do an archive on this talk page - "estensive multiple pov talk pages imply woolliness of thinking on several fronts".) Jackiespeel 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I only got to know (or realise the importance of) this flagged revision extension of MediaWiki and its suggested implementation on Wikipedia when I read Ben Yates' entry and all related links on Wikimedia Planet yesterday.
Immediately I know this is the most important change to Wikipedia since its birth, and is going to REVOLUTIONISE Wikipedia, a (if not the) powerhouse of the edit-this-page direct-user-contribution culture - we are facing a fundamental change to how users' contributions will be treated, according to the user status instead of the quality or reasoning of the contribution.
Before, the software (MediaWiki) either accepts the contribution of a user and immediately commits it, or do not accept contribution ( protected pages) at all. This gives an impression of openness, transparency and simplicity. Users feel trusted and in control. Their contribution will only be removed (or hidden from current revision) if their fellow equal Wikipedians reasonably challenge its quality. That's what it means: " Wikipedia represents a belief in the supremacy of reason".
This extension changes all these by treating all users as untrustworthy by default, and hides their initial contributions from public (non-Wikipedian) view (or on a separate, "unsighted" page) until they are "sighted". Before the contribution get "sighted", the user feels excluded, uncertain (about when the "sighting" will happen, and its outcome) and helpless (to ask who to "sight" his/her contribution).
This is done in the name of improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Various policies and essays have repeatedly stated that our freedoms can be limited when they go against improving the encyclopedic side of Wikipedia. What Wikipedia is not and protection policies are good examples of limiting freedoms.
But Wikipedia is different, very different from other encyclopedias. It is unique, not because of its quality, but because of its openness, freedom and reason-driven. It makes it influential not merely as a treasure of knowledge, but also as a forerunner of the open culture. It seems that we can be the best of both worlds, until now...
Freedom or quality? Time to choose.
I can see where the tide is heading, and given the strong influence of the developers (nobody wanna make them feel bad by rejecting an extension they created using toil and sweat) I believe it's only a matter of time before this roll out on the English Wikipedia. However, I still want to make a few suggestions here to make this extension more friendly than it seems now, and less alienating to new/potential Wikipedians.
Some of my other concerns:
This is a very long comment, but thanks for reading all this.-- Computor 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the claim that the vision of behind this proposal is to make Wikipedia a reliable source. The Fox News source doesn't support it specifically, nor does the Wikipedia:Pushing to validation discussion. More importantly, it seems like a misapplication of WP:RS (which the claim linked to). WP is built on RSs; it cannot itself become one.-- Thomas Basboll 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I found the phrase "credible information source" in Wikipedia:Pushing to validation. Perhaps that is what was originally meant. It remains confusing to link to WP:RS.-- Thomas Basboll 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a while ago that I looked at this proposal, so apologies if I've got the wrong idea about how it will work, or if all this has been discussed before. My concern is that if there is a "good" version that the world will see, and a "work in progress" version waiting to be ratified, then there will be less incentive to fix the "work in progress" version. Given the possibly lengthy delay before anyone gets around to ratifying the latest edits, my concern is that the "work in progress" version of less-visited articles will turn into garbage. It may then not be feasible to retrieve any good edits that might be lurking in the mass of unreverted vandalism and other nonsense, and the whole of the "work in progress" version will have to be thrown away. Matt 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See here.-- Eloquence * 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the concept behind this proposal, but from what I have seen over several years here, there is enormous resistance to changing the fundamental nature of Wikipedia. I think the Flagged version as proposed does change the nature of Wikipedia in that anonymous editors will no longer see their edits take effect immediately.
I think there is a simple modification that would realize the most of the benefits but would provoke far less argument: retain as the default behavior the present approach, where edits are generally available immediately, but add an icon or link to the page structure that shows the existence of a flagged version. If the user clicks on that icon they are shown the flagged version and can ask for a diff from the current version.
There could be different flags/tags for different levels of review. there should also be an option to display a condensed history that only shows flagged versions and any subsequent edits.
I also think the lowest level of review should focus entirely on anti-vandalism. The only requirement for the lowest flag should be that the reviewers have carefully combed the article for vandalism. They should be encouraged to fix other gross problems as well, most editors will anyway, but should avoid contentious issues at this level of review. -- agr 03:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that there was no consensus to implement the system. The bulk of comments seemed to be of the "what is really going to happen" variety. There were also folks dead set against it, but very few to my recollection. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is up on test.wikipedia. Voice-of-All 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The project aims to improve on the Wikipedia model by requiring all contributors to use their real names, by strictly moderating the project for unprofessional behaviors, and by providing what it calls "gentle expert oversight" of everyday contributors. A main feature of the project is its "approved articles", which have each undergone a form of peer-review by credentialed topic-experts and are closed to real-time editing.
I've been looking at vandalism stats for all kinds of random pages as well as high profile pages. It seems to me that many obscure pages would be best left with the current revision shown by default. The % time vandalized is just too low. On the other hand, high-traffic pages and ones that get trolled can be messed up 5-10%+ of the time (which is pretty crappy). Maybe the stable version should not by the default view revision for each page, but admins should set it that way as the vandalism goes up and in the place of semi-protection. Voice-of-All 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim Starling has said the software is ready for release. Improvements can be made as users work with it and give input. Voice-of-All 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My only concern about sighted versions is how long an User needs to wait before someone sights the page after they make an edit. I would like to know if the technology would allow a page to be automatically unsighted after an amount of time after the page has been edited and remained unsighted. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody please comment on the current situation of the implementation of this extension (on this Wiki)? I've just come across this page, and so have only this to go on. A brief update would be greatly appreciated — αlεx• mullεr 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a further update on when this extension will be enabled? - Borofkin ( talk) 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Voice of All, (or actually anyone associated with coding the "sighted tag"): the font size of the tag needs to be increased slightly. At least with Firefox 2, the rendering of the font is just fuzzy enough that users can't read it without increasing the size. This pic shows what I'm talking about. Have fun, — Mrand Talk • C 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I had never done that before, but the last days I spent several hours on recent changes patrol. Now, I am more convinced than ever that Wikipedia desperately needs the "sighted versions" feature.
Pages get vandalized on a per-second basis, sometimes quite obvious and clumsy, sometimes more subtle. But whether we catch the vandalism seems to be more a matter of chance. While the very evident cases (page blanking etc.) reliably get caught by bots, I've seen many others slip through, just because no one happened to check them. Without any kind of "checklist" feature, who knows which changes would need a review? Once they've left the recent changes list, no one can tell. We don't even have a statistics that tells us how many patrollers would be needed. Plus, much effort is wasted because people are working independently on the same change. In short: We're spending a lot of effort, but we're not doing it efficiently, and we can't even tell whether it's successful.
The sooner we get "sighted versions", the better, -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 22:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have extended the "rollout" section per WP:BOLD. Comments are welcome. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 12:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering Evolution/draft article has been implemented for a couple of weeks now. I wonder, if this proposals would allow the editors there to stop that manual implementation and use some form of flagging.
Personally, I think for this to work on that page, the auto-granting of reviewer rights may have to be dropped. It would be more useful to use this feature on fewer pages, but in a way that it actually solves the real problems. I will ask editors of evolution to comment here, because they are having the kind of problem that flagging really must solve. So if they suspect that the vandal they are facing is capable of abusing auto-granting, then I suggest we get rid of auto-granting. -- Merzul ( talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As one of the people involved in this experiment, I think that we need to have the option of moving the level of flagging on a case-by-case basis, as a lightweight form of article protection. Giving admins the option in some cases of moving the displayed version from that produced by auto-confirmed editors to a smaller set of editors would allow anybody to edit the page, but prevent sockpuppet abuse very effectively. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Where does this stand currently? The technology seems to exist if the Germans are using it? Inaction on this front seems to be our biggest issue as an encyclopaedia. Wily D 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Summary
Results
Conclusions
Discussion
Very interesting and informative. It's obviously not a 1:1 parallel since the edit button at the top of the actual evolution article essentially disabled and there is no notice on that page on how to edit it (i.e., would-be editors have to go through another two steps to edit the article - and then trust that the admin really will be non-biased and move the edit over), but the experiment is informative non-the-less. Thanks! — Mrand Talk • C 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this a while back and like the idea, but I think it might be helpful to compare this month(?) long trial to (if it exists) a previous month's worth of 'normal' mode edits before this problem vandal. Specifically, I'm interested in whether the willingness of people to make constructive edits (measured crudely by number of editors) has been reduced at all by the draft. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I wanted this thing to succeed but I can't see any definitive proof above that this doesn't adversely put off anon contributions. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any method for removing the ability to flag articles from contributors who abuse it, except for a straight block? Should we have one? Wily D 11:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing that this question is here "somewhere"...
So as I read the proposal, more than one version of the page in question will be marked "sighted"? Or just the most recent version?
I strongly hope it's the latter.
We've run into situations of copy-vio, where an article had to be reverted back even more than a year to a non-copyvio version.
So this would mean (shudder) removing all these "sighted" demarcations? And that's from a single article.
Would someone please clarify? - jc37 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Individual articles can be set to ignore the sighted flags and display the most current version. So in problem cases, we can always go back to the system we have now until the problems get sorted out, if that's ever necessary.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Under the Surveyor rights section, "Rollback rights" is listed as a right of this user group. This seems odd to me, and I hope I'm reading it incorrectly. If a user abuses the rollback function, any admin can simply remove that editor from the "rollbacker" user group. Does this mean that the editor would also have to be removed from the "surveyor" group? If this simply means the editor can essentially revert to a previous sighted revision, a better choice of terms would be nice. - auburnpilot talk 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It is suggested that discussion from this page continue at Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions. Coppertwig ( talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
==Surveyor rights==
Firstly it seems to me the correct word for this role in English is Redactor.
Secondly, Redactor status should only be granted to experienced editors participating in the Project the article is categorised in, and not liberally. Redactors should only have Flagged revision access to the Projects where they have contributed at least 10 non-stub articles, and when their contributions do not include generation of stubs.
Alienation and creating class hierarchy has nothing to do with producing good articles. It has everything to do with a consistent approach to Quality Assurance of Wikipedia content. New contributors can not be expected to have this awareness.
So,
1. Any trusted editor may be granted rights by an administrator, regardless of their edit count.
1. Any Project participating editor may be granted rights by Project coordinators based on assessment of their Project contribution.
2. The right will also be given automatically by the software to editors who meet the following conditions:
o 30 300 edits to article namespace pages
o 10 100 article namespace pages edited
o 15 45 days of edits
This role is essentially that of final Quality Assurance for Wikipedia content; it should not be given out lightly. Regards-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been seeing an increasing trend in editing towards stratification and removing power from the anonymous contributor. I thought most of the edits were performed by anonymous editors. Aren't we then throwing the baby out with the bathwater to make it simultaneously harder for both vandals and good-faith editors to contribute?
Solves the vandal problem, maybe, but it creates a vacuum in anonymous contribution that wasn't previously a problem. If this doesn't get implemented in a more democratic way, I sense a fork. Maybe that's exactly what is needed, though. At least I can take heart that it's all GFDL! 70.247.162.50 ( talk) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
PL : No obvious vandalism. DE : No obvious vandalism. RU
Do these abbreviations mean Poland, Germany and Russia? If so, why not say so? And do they refer to the Wikipedias in those languages? If they do, why not say so? Your somewhat confused friend, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Will editors marking versions incur any additional liability? I'm especially thinking of controversial material about living people. If this has already been hashed out, just point me to the discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Person X" signs in with a nom-de-plume and uses public access terminals (libraries, internet cafes etc) and makes a statement that is slightly controversial. #How# can the originator be legally dealt with?
The article/proposa is confusing - will only some articles be covered, vandalised earlier versions be blocked etc? How will a good article about a living person be dealt with? Pages which need much improvement. "Very technical" pages which need an expert to assess them?
There is an argument for the Wiki equivalent of kitemarking of articles which reach a certain minimum standard - but a framework has to be developed first that does not imply a two-tier Wikipedia - and probably a serious reduction in the cleanup, expansion and other work required lists.
(Can someone do an archive on this talk page - "estensive multiple pov talk pages imply woolliness of thinking on several fronts".) Jackiespeel 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I only got to know (or realise the importance of) this flagged revision extension of MediaWiki and its suggested implementation on Wikipedia when I read Ben Yates' entry and all related links on Wikimedia Planet yesterday.
Immediately I know this is the most important change to Wikipedia since its birth, and is going to REVOLUTIONISE Wikipedia, a (if not the) powerhouse of the edit-this-page direct-user-contribution culture - we are facing a fundamental change to how users' contributions will be treated, according to the user status instead of the quality or reasoning of the contribution.
Before, the software (MediaWiki) either accepts the contribution of a user and immediately commits it, or do not accept contribution ( protected pages) at all. This gives an impression of openness, transparency and simplicity. Users feel trusted and in control. Their contribution will only be removed (or hidden from current revision) if their fellow equal Wikipedians reasonably challenge its quality. That's what it means: " Wikipedia represents a belief in the supremacy of reason".
This extension changes all these by treating all users as untrustworthy by default, and hides their initial contributions from public (non-Wikipedian) view (or on a separate, "unsighted" page) until they are "sighted". Before the contribution get "sighted", the user feels excluded, uncertain (about when the "sighting" will happen, and its outcome) and helpless (to ask who to "sight" his/her contribution).
This is done in the name of improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Various policies and essays have repeatedly stated that our freedoms can be limited when they go against improving the encyclopedic side of Wikipedia. What Wikipedia is not and protection policies are good examples of limiting freedoms.
But Wikipedia is different, very different from other encyclopedias. It is unique, not because of its quality, but because of its openness, freedom and reason-driven. It makes it influential not merely as a treasure of knowledge, but also as a forerunner of the open culture. It seems that we can be the best of both worlds, until now...
Freedom or quality? Time to choose.
I can see where the tide is heading, and given the strong influence of the developers (nobody wanna make them feel bad by rejecting an extension they created using toil and sweat) I believe it's only a matter of time before this roll out on the English Wikipedia. However, I still want to make a few suggestions here to make this extension more friendly than it seems now, and less alienating to new/potential Wikipedians.
Some of my other concerns:
This is a very long comment, but thanks for reading all this.-- Computor 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the claim that the vision of behind this proposal is to make Wikipedia a reliable source. The Fox News source doesn't support it specifically, nor does the Wikipedia:Pushing to validation discussion. More importantly, it seems like a misapplication of WP:RS (which the claim linked to). WP is built on RSs; it cannot itself become one.-- Thomas Basboll 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I found the phrase "credible information source" in Wikipedia:Pushing to validation. Perhaps that is what was originally meant. It remains confusing to link to WP:RS.-- Thomas Basboll 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a while ago that I looked at this proposal, so apologies if I've got the wrong idea about how it will work, or if all this has been discussed before. My concern is that if there is a "good" version that the world will see, and a "work in progress" version waiting to be ratified, then there will be less incentive to fix the "work in progress" version. Given the possibly lengthy delay before anyone gets around to ratifying the latest edits, my concern is that the "work in progress" version of less-visited articles will turn into garbage. It may then not be feasible to retrieve any good edits that might be lurking in the mass of unreverted vandalism and other nonsense, and the whole of the "work in progress" version will have to be thrown away. Matt 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See here.-- Eloquence * 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the concept behind this proposal, but from what I have seen over several years here, there is enormous resistance to changing the fundamental nature of Wikipedia. I think the Flagged version as proposed does change the nature of Wikipedia in that anonymous editors will no longer see their edits take effect immediately.
I think there is a simple modification that would realize the most of the benefits but would provoke far less argument: retain as the default behavior the present approach, where edits are generally available immediately, but add an icon or link to the page structure that shows the existence of a flagged version. If the user clicks on that icon they are shown the flagged version and can ask for a diff from the current version.
There could be different flags/tags for different levels of review. there should also be an option to display a condensed history that only shows flagged versions and any subsequent edits.
I also think the lowest level of review should focus entirely on anti-vandalism. The only requirement for the lowest flag should be that the reviewers have carefully combed the article for vandalism. They should be encouraged to fix other gross problems as well, most editors will anyway, but should avoid contentious issues at this level of review. -- agr 03:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that there was no consensus to implement the system. The bulk of comments seemed to be of the "what is really going to happen" variety. There were also folks dead set against it, but very few to my recollection. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is up on test.wikipedia. Voice-of-All 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The project aims to improve on the Wikipedia model by requiring all contributors to use their real names, by strictly moderating the project for unprofessional behaviors, and by providing what it calls "gentle expert oversight" of everyday contributors. A main feature of the project is its "approved articles", which have each undergone a form of peer-review by credentialed topic-experts and are closed to real-time editing.
I've been looking at vandalism stats for all kinds of random pages as well as high profile pages. It seems to me that many obscure pages would be best left with the current revision shown by default. The % time vandalized is just too low. On the other hand, high-traffic pages and ones that get trolled can be messed up 5-10%+ of the time (which is pretty crappy). Maybe the stable version should not by the default view revision for each page, but admins should set it that way as the vandalism goes up and in the place of semi-protection. Voice-of-All 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim Starling has said the software is ready for release. Improvements can be made as users work with it and give input. Voice-of-All 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My only concern about sighted versions is how long an User needs to wait before someone sights the page after they make an edit. I would like to know if the technology would allow a page to be automatically unsighted after an amount of time after the page has been edited and remained unsighted. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody please comment on the current situation of the implementation of this extension (on this Wiki)? I've just come across this page, and so have only this to go on. A brief update would be greatly appreciated — αlεx• mullεr 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a further update on when this extension will be enabled? - Borofkin ( talk) 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Voice of All, (or actually anyone associated with coding the "sighted tag"): the font size of the tag needs to be increased slightly. At least with Firefox 2, the rendering of the font is just fuzzy enough that users can't read it without increasing the size. This pic shows what I'm talking about. Have fun, — Mrand Talk • C 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I had never done that before, but the last days I spent several hours on recent changes patrol. Now, I am more convinced than ever that Wikipedia desperately needs the "sighted versions" feature.
Pages get vandalized on a per-second basis, sometimes quite obvious and clumsy, sometimes more subtle. But whether we catch the vandalism seems to be more a matter of chance. While the very evident cases (page blanking etc.) reliably get caught by bots, I've seen many others slip through, just because no one happened to check them. Without any kind of "checklist" feature, who knows which changes would need a review? Once they've left the recent changes list, no one can tell. We don't even have a statistics that tells us how many patrollers would be needed. Plus, much effort is wasted because people are working independently on the same change. In short: We're spending a lot of effort, but we're not doing it efficiently, and we can't even tell whether it's successful.
The sooner we get "sighted versions", the better, -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 22:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have extended the "rollout" section per WP:BOLD. Comments are welcome. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 12:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering Evolution/draft article has been implemented for a couple of weeks now. I wonder, if this proposals would allow the editors there to stop that manual implementation and use some form of flagging.
Personally, I think for this to work on that page, the auto-granting of reviewer rights may have to be dropped. It would be more useful to use this feature on fewer pages, but in a way that it actually solves the real problems. I will ask editors of evolution to comment here, because they are having the kind of problem that flagging really must solve. So if they suspect that the vandal they are facing is capable of abusing auto-granting, then I suggest we get rid of auto-granting. -- Merzul ( talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As one of the people involved in this experiment, I think that we need to have the option of moving the level of flagging on a case-by-case basis, as a lightweight form of article protection. Giving admins the option in some cases of moving the displayed version from that produced by auto-confirmed editors to a smaller set of editors would allow anybody to edit the page, but prevent sockpuppet abuse very effectively. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Where does this stand currently? The technology seems to exist if the Germans are using it? Inaction on this front seems to be our biggest issue as an encyclopaedia. Wily D 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Summary
Results
Conclusions
Discussion
Very interesting and informative. It's obviously not a 1:1 parallel since the edit button at the top of the actual evolution article essentially disabled and there is no notice on that page on how to edit it (i.e., would-be editors have to go through another two steps to edit the article - and then trust that the admin really will be non-biased and move the edit over), but the experiment is informative non-the-less. Thanks! — Mrand Talk • C 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this a while back and like the idea, but I think it might be helpful to compare this month(?) long trial to (if it exists) a previous month's worth of 'normal' mode edits before this problem vandal. Specifically, I'm interested in whether the willingness of people to make constructive edits (measured crudely by number of editors) has been reduced at all by the draft. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I wanted this thing to succeed but I can't see any definitive proof above that this doesn't adversely put off anon contributions. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any method for removing the ability to flag articles from contributors who abuse it, except for a straight block? Should we have one? Wily D 11:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing that this question is here "somewhere"...
So as I read the proposal, more than one version of the page in question will be marked "sighted"? Or just the most recent version?
I strongly hope it's the latter.
We've run into situations of copy-vio, where an article had to be reverted back even more than a year to a non-copyvio version.
So this would mean (shudder) removing all these "sighted" demarcations? And that's from a single article.
Would someone please clarify? - jc37 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Individual articles can be set to ignore the sighted flags and display the most current version. So in problem cases, we can always go back to the system we have now until the problems get sorted out, if that's ever necessary.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Under the Surveyor rights section, "Rollback rights" is listed as a right of this user group. This seems odd to me, and I hope I'm reading it incorrectly. If a user abuses the rollback function, any admin can simply remove that editor from the "rollbacker" user group. Does this mean that the editor would also have to be removed from the "surveyor" group? If this simply means the editor can essentially revert to a previous sighted revision, a better choice of terms would be nice. - auburnpilot talk 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It is suggested that discussion from this page continue at Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions. Coppertwig ( talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
==Surveyor rights==
Firstly it seems to me the correct word for this role in English is Redactor.
Secondly, Redactor status should only be granted to experienced editors participating in the Project the article is categorised in, and not liberally. Redactors should only have Flagged revision access to the Projects where they have contributed at least 10 non-stub articles, and when their contributions do not include generation of stubs.
Alienation and creating class hierarchy has nothing to do with producing good articles. It has everything to do with a consistent approach to Quality Assurance of Wikipedia content. New contributors can not be expected to have this awareness.
So,
1. Any trusted editor may be granted rights by an administrator, regardless of their edit count.
1. Any Project participating editor may be granted rights by Project coordinators based on assessment of their Project contribution.
2. The right will also be given automatically by the software to editors who meet the following conditions:
o 30 300 edits to article namespace pages
o 10 100 article namespace pages edited
o 15 45 days of edits
This role is essentially that of final Quality Assurance for Wikipedia content; it should not be given out lightly. Regards-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been seeing an increasing trend in editing towards stratification and removing power from the anonymous contributor. I thought most of the edits were performed by anonymous editors. Aren't we then throwing the baby out with the bathwater to make it simultaneously harder for both vandals and good-faith editors to contribute?
Solves the vandal problem, maybe, but it creates a vacuum in anonymous contribution that wasn't previously a problem. If this doesn't get implemented in a more democratic way, I sense a fork. Maybe that's exactly what is needed, though. At least I can take heart that it's all GFDL! 70.247.162.50 ( talk) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
PL : No obvious vandalism. DE : No obvious vandalism. RU
Do these abbreviations mean Poland, Germany and Russia? If so, why not say so? And do they refer to the Wikipedias in those languages? If they do, why not say so? Your somewhat confused friend, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)